Mind Brain and Education - 2021 - Gini - Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders Misconceptions by Educators and The

MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION
Neuromyths About
Neurodevelopmental Disorders:
Misconceptions by Educators
and the General Public
Silvia Gini1 , Victoria Knowland2,3 , Michael S.C. Thomas4 , and Jo Van Herwegen1
ABSTRACT— Neuromyths are commonly held misconcep- design evidence-based guidelines for educational practices
tions about the brain believed by both the general public with a strong research foundation), misconceptions about
and educators. While much research has investigated the the brain, or neuromyths, are prevalent (Dekker, Lee,
prevalence of myths about the typically developing brain, Howard-Jones, & Jolles, 2012). Common neuromyths
less attention has been devoted to the pervasiveness of neu- include: “students use only 10% of their brains”; “stu-
romyths about neurodevelopmental disorders, which have dents have different learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory,
the potential to exacerbate stigma. This preregistered study and kinaesthetic)”; or “water drinking enhances learning”
investigated to what extent neuromyths about neurodevel- (Howard-Jones, 2014).
opmental disorders (namely dyslexia, attention deficit hyper- Neuromyths originate from a variety of processes, includ-
activity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and syndrome) ing the oversimplification of scientific results, sensational-
are endorsed by two groups: the general public and those ism, and omission of important information (Tardif, Doudin,
working in education. In an online survey, 366 members of & Meylan, 2015). Despite having been repeatedly debunked
the general public and 203 individuals working in education
in the scientific literature, their myth status meant that neu-
rated similar numbers of myths to be true, but more about
romyths are enduring and continue to circulate as scien-
neurodevelopmental disorders than general neuromyths. As
tifically based truths all over the world (Torrijos-Muelas,
the frequency of access to brain information emerged as a
González-Víllora, & Bodoque-Osma, 2021).
protective factor against endorsing myths in both popula-
Neuromyths are not only endorsed by the general
tions, we argue that this problem may be addressed via pro-
population, but also by teachers, where their existence
vision of neuroeducational resources.
might be exacerbated by the “cultural distance” that
exists between the fields of neuroscience and education
(Howard-Jones, 2014, p. 817). The endorsement of neu-
romyths in teachers and educators has been extensively
General Neuromyths investigated (see Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021 for a system-
Despite an increase in research and dissemination of atic review). For instance, a survey found that teachers in
educational neuroscience (an emerging field that aims to the UK and the Netherlands (n = 242) recognized only half
of the neuromyths as incorrect (Dekker et al., 2012).
1
Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute
When it comes to spotting neuromyths, those work-
of Education ing in education usually outperform the general public
2 Department of Speech and Language Sciences, Newcastle University
(Macdonald, Germine, Anderson, Christodoulou, &
3 Department of Psychology, Ulster University
4 Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Department of Psychological McGrath, 2017). Further research suggests that correct
Sciences, Birkbeck University of London identification of neuromyths can be predicted by years
spent in education and by the content of education (those
Address correspondence to Jo Van Herwegen, Department of Psychol-
ogy and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, 25 Woburn who attended neuroscience courses performed better)
Square, London WC1H 0AA, UK; e-mail: [email protected] (Macdonald et al., 2017; Ruhaak & Cook, 2018).
Volume 15—Number 4 © 2021 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals LLC 289
1751228x, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mbe.12303 by UFRN - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Wiley Online Library on [23/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Neuromyths in Developmental Disorders
The circulation of neuromyths reflects an implicit belief what they consider key symptoms, such as letter-reversals
that an understanding of brain mechanisms can inform (Macdonald et al., 2017).
educational practice. Researching what neuromyths are ASD is found in around 1% of the population (Russell,
being held by different groups of people in relation to Rodgers, Ukoumunne, & Ford, 2014) and includes a range
their previous education and experience can throw a of social communication difficulties, restricted interests,
spotlight on where further translation issues need to be and highly repetitive behaviors (American Psychiatric
addressed. Association, 2013). A focus group showed seven common
ASD neuromyths (John, Knott, & Harvey, 2017): four of
them were related to the social dimension of the disorder,
Neurodevelopmental Disorders including beliefs that children on the spectrum do not like
To date, little research has focused on neuromyths surround- to be touched or are disinterested in any social relation-
ing neurodevelopmental disorders, and their endorsement ship. Yet, John et al. (2017) did not compare how common
among those working in education compared with those in these beliefs are or how these beliefs relate to exposure to
the wider community. As misconceptions in this domain neuroscience or professional occupation.
can form the basis of stigma (Corrigan & Watson, 2002), an ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized
investigation of the prevalence of neuromyths about devel- by persistent inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity
opmental disorders in these two populations provides a (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) with a 1.4%
helpful perspective on the topics that awareness campaigns prevalence in the UK (Russell et al., 2014). Some of the
should focus on. most common misconceptions parents and teachers hold
According to DSM V criteria, “neurodevelopmental dis- about ADHD regard the treatment and characteristics of
orders” include: intellectual disabilities, communication dis- the disorder. For example, West, Taylor, Houghton, and
orders, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit Hudyma (2005) found that teachers incorrectly identified
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorders special diets as an effective form of treatment for ADHD.
(such as dyslexia), motor disorders, Tourette’s, and tic dis- Misconceptions might influence parents’ acceptance of
orders. Except for a handful of studies that have examined different treatments: lower levels of misconceptions were
neuromyths about one neurodevelopmental disorder at a associated with more positive attitudes toward stimulant
time, few studies have examined neuromyths related to neu- medication (Sciutto, 2013). West et al.’ (2005) study included
rodevelopmental disorders in a broader sense either in the beliefs from parents and their child’s teacher: two groups
general population or in teachers. The most common neu- who are knowledgeable about ADHD. This might suggest
rodevelopmental disorders in the UK include dyslexia, ASD, that an even higher incidence of neuromyths about the
and ADHD, whereas the most common genetically caused disorder in the general population may exist.
learning difficulty is Down syndrome; therefore, these will Research on neuromyths related to genetic disorders,
form the focus of the current study. such as Down syndrome, is even scarcer. Down syndrome
(DS) is a genetic condition caused by extra genetic material
or translocation of genetic material on chromosome 21 and
Neuromyths on Dyslexia, ASD, ADHD, and Down is one of the most common chromosomal disorders in the
Syndrome UK, with a prevalence 1 in every 1,000 babies born (Lakhan-
Dyslexia is a learning difficulty affecting reading and spelling paul, 2020). Some of the most common myths regarding
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013) affecting up to individuals with DS concern their language ability (e.g.,
1 in 10 people in the UK (Snowling, 2013). One in two “What a child with learning difficulties can understand can
people believe that children with dyslexia see letters back- be measured by what that child can say”) (Cologon, 2013). In
ward (like letter-reversals, where b becomes d) (Macdonald semi-structured interviews of pregnant women in Australia,
et al., 2017). While it is true that children with dyslexia knowledge of DS was higher in those who had experience
make letter-reversals in their writing, so do their typically of other genetic disorders (Long, O’Leary, Lobo, & Dickin-
developing peers—especially in the first stages of reading son, 2018), suggesting a protective role of familiarity against
development; and the hypothesis that all children with misconceptions.
dyslexia see letters backward has been dismissed (Wolff &
Melngailis, 1996). Nevertheless, the majority of UK teachers
(91%) believe dyslexia to include visual perception difficul- Neurodevelopmental Disorders in the Classroom
ties, including letter-reversals (Washburn, Binks-Cantrell, Following the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), all
& Joshi, 2014). Such myths can be detrimental to obtaining children have the right to be included in mainstream edu-
a diagnosis, as parents and educators might hesitate to refer cation, including those with neurodevelopmental disorders,
the child for further assessment, if the child does not present and therefore, it is likely teachers encounter children with
290 Volume 15—Number 4

Silvia Gini et al.
these diagnoses in their classrooms. As such, every qual- METHODS

ified teacher training program in the UK usually includes
training about how those with learning needs can proceed Participants
in the curriculum (Department for Education, 2021). It can Participants were recruited through opportunity sampling
thus be predicted that those working in an educational set- by circulating a link to the survey to databases from different
ting should have fewer incorrect beliefs related to both gen- research centers, as well as on social media, such as Twitter
eral and neurodevelopmental neuromyths compared with and Facebook.
the general population. Five-hundred and seventy-five participants from the UK
Although no consensus has been reached regarding completed the study. Six were excluded because they were
the extent to which neuromyths are detrimental to pupils’ under the age of 18, leaving a final sample of 569 (16% male).
learning, studies have highlighted that teachers who endorse The majority of respondents were English native speak-
neuromyths often adopt practices linked to these incorrect ers (84%). Table 1 summarizes main demographic charac-
beliefs (Lethaby & Harries, 2016). For example, teachers teristics of the sample. There was a significant difference
may assess students for their learning style or provide learn- in levels of education between those who worked in edu-
ing activities relevant to a particular learning style. While cation and those who did not; 𝜒 2 (1,7) = 28.07, p < .001,
neuromyths may reflect a positive, implicit assumption that with those working in education having higher levels of
an understanding of brain mechanism can inform educa- education.
tional practice, the prevalence of neuromyths in educational As can be seen in Figure 1, most of those who were
settings demands attention to ensure no pupil is exposed to employed in education were teachers.
impoverished education.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
The Current Study
The current research compared beliefs about the typically Working in General
developing brain (“general neuromyths”) to those relating to education population
neurodevelopmental disorders (“neurodevelopmental neu- (n = 203) (n = 366)
romyths”). By recruiting a UK-based sample of members
Age group
of the general public and those working in education, it 18–25 14 (7%) 38 (10%)
explored the following hypotheses: 26–35 40 (20%) 84 (23%)
1. Based on the existing literature, it was predicted that all 36–45 65 (32%) 91 (25%)
groups would endorse at least some neuromyths but that 46–55 52 (26%) 104 (28%)
neuromyths related to neurodevelopmental disorders 56–65 26 (13%) 31 (8%)
would be more common. 66+ 6 (2%) 17 (5%)
unknown 0 1 (1%)
2. Based on exposure to educational training and/or direct
School type work place
experience, it was predicted that mainstream class Preschools 9 (4%) N/A
teachers would hold fewer incorrect beliefs than the Primary 50 (25%) N/A
general public, and that Special Education Needs and Secondary 78 (39%) N/A
Disabilities (SEND) teachers would hold fewer incorrect Higher education 54 (27%) N/A
beliefs than mainstream classroom teachers. settings/colleges
We therefore predicted an interaction between myth type Formal disability diagnosis 14 (7%) 14 (4%)
Has a child with learning disability 48 (26%) 95 (27%)
(general vs. neurodevelopmental disorder) and group (public
Highest Education level
vs. mainstream teacher vs. SEND teacher). Secondary level or equivalent 17 (9%) 75 (21%)
3. With respect to the role of familiarity with disorders, Undergraduate degree or 94 (46%) 154 (42%)
and the role of interest in the brain, based on pre- equivalent
vious studies (e.g., Dekker et al., 2012; although see Postgraduate degree or above 92 (45%) 137 (37%)
Herculano-Houzel, 2002), we predicted that those with My training course covered the
more familiarity with a disorder would hold fewer incor- development of children with
rect beliefs; and that those with an interest in the brain, developmental disabilities
Yes 47 (27%) N/A
and those who regularly access information about the
A little 71 (41%) N/A
brain, would hold more incorrect beliefs. These predic- No 53 (30% N/A
tions were tested separately for the general public and Cannot remember 4 (2%) N/A
for those working in education.
Volume 15—Number 4 291

Donoghue, Horton, Lodge, & Hattie, 2018) and 0.67 for the
neurodevelopmental neuromyths.
Familiarity with developmental disorders was measured
by the average familiarity score (0 not familiar at all, 1 some-
what familiar, 2 very familiar) for the seven groups for the
question: “How familiar are you with each of the following
disorder group?” and seven disorder groups were provided:
ADHD, autism, dyscalculia, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Down syn-
drome, others.
Respondents’ interest in neuroscience was measured by
the reported level of agreement (1 strongly disagree to 7
strongly agree) related to the statement: “I find scientific
knowledge about the brain and its influence on learning
interesting.”
Accessing information about the brain was based on
reported frequency of how often information about the brain
Fig. 1. Roles within school for the 203 respondents who were was accessed: weekly, monthly, every 3–6 months, once per
employed in education. EdPsych = Educational Psychologist; year, or hardly ever or never.
SENCO = Special Educational Needs Coordinator, TA = Teaching
Assistant.
Procedure
Materials Participants completed an online survey that was distributed
General Neuromyths via the online survey platform Qualtrics. Participants were
The study adopted the “Brain knowledge statements survey” asked to consent to take part in the study by completing an
presented as part of the Ruhaak and Cook (2018) question- opt-in consent form. The survey took 15–30 min to com-
naire. It consisted of 15 statements (9 correct, 6 incorrect) plete.
about the brain. Participants first completed the two sections about gen-
eral neuromyths and neurodevelopmental neuromyths.
These statements were presented in random order. Next,
Neurodevelopmental Neuromyths
participants completed a section where demographic infor-
This questionnaire consisted of 30 statements about
mation including age category, highest level of education,
neurodevelopmental disorders including: nonspecific neu-
and career. Those who reported to be working in the educa-
rodevelopmental neuromyths that applied to more than
tion sector were presented with additional questions about
one neurodevelopmental disorder, and statements referred
their role within the school and experience working with
to specific neurodevelopmental disorders (including ASD,
SEND children.
ADHD, Down syndrome, and dyslexia). The statements
The study, the survey, and analyses were preregistered via
derived from a number of previous studies that had mostly
the Open Science Framework (see osf.io/acztx).
focused on neuromyths pertaining to individual disorders
(see Table 2 for the statements and their sources). Compared
with general neuromyths, there was a higher ratio of false Scoring
statements (n = 21) compared with true statements (n = 9), In order to compare scores across the different neuromyths,
seeing that most of the previous studies had focused on all answers were recoded using a scale of 1–4 from least
incorrect beliefs around neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. to most correct answer, thereby generating a total score for
John et al., 2017; Washburn et al., 2014). the overall correct belief of neuromyths, with lower scores
For both types of neuromyths, participants rated each indicating higher acceptance of neuromyths. However, for
statement on a 4-point Likert scale (“True,” “Probably ordinal regression analyses, raw scores from 1 to 4 were used
true,” “Probably false,” and “False”) rather than a 2-point as outcome variables.
(True/False) scale as the current evidence base for some of
the neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders dis-
cussed in the following is still developing and we anticipated RESULTS
that participants might be reticent to give definite answers
for all of them. Confirmatory Analyses
The overall reliability for the survey was 0.73, with a reli- In the preregistered hypotheses, we predicted that main-
ability of 0.55 for general myths 0.55 (in line with Horvath, stream teachers would hold more incorrect beliefs than

Silvia Gini et al.
Table 2
List of Neurodevelopmental Statements, Whether They Were True or False, Category and Source
Item True/false Category Taken or adapted from
Stimulant drugs are the most common type of drug used to T ADHD Sciutto, Terjesen, &
treat children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Frank, 2000
(ADHD)
Most ADHD children “outgrow” their symptoms and F ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
subsequently function normally in adulthood
Reducing dietary intake of sugar or food additives is generally F ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
effective in reducing the symptoms of ADHD
Children with ADHD have difficulties with focus and T ADHD American Psychiatric
concentration Association, 2013
It is possible for an adult to be diagnosed with ADHD T ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
Current research suggests that ADHD is largely the result of F ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
ineffective parenting skills
Symptoms of depression are found more frequently in children T ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
with ADHD than in children without ADHD
If a child responds to stimulant medications (e.g. Ritalin), then F ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
they probably have ADHD
Research has shown that prolonged use of stimulant F ADHD Sciutto et al., 2000
medications for ADHD leads to increased addiction (i.e.
drug, alcohol) in adulthood
Children with autism are unable to notice social rejection F Autism John et al., 2017
Children with autism do not have empathy F Autism Baron-Cohen, 2009
Some children with autism have a special talent or savant skill T Autism John et al., 2017
Autism only occurs in boys F Autism
Children with autism do not like to be touched F Autism John et al., 2017
Children with Down syndrome have smaller brains T Down syndrome Pinter et al., 2001
Children with Down syndrome cannot understand what they F Down syndrome Cologon, 2013
are reading
People with Down syndrome are always happy and affectionate F Down syndrome Down syndrome
Scotland website
Children with Down syndrome cannot learn anything complex F Down syndrome Cologon, 2013
All children with dyslexia see letters backward F Dyslexia Washburn et al., 2014
Children who are dyslexic tend to have lower IQ scores than F Dyslexia Washburn et al., 2014
children who are not dyslexic
In some children dyslexia is caused by visual problems F Dyslexia Washburn et al., 2014
Children with dyslexia can often excel in other areas T Dyslexia NHS, 2018
Dyslexia can be helped by using colored lenses and/or colored F Dyslexia Washburn et al., 2014
overlays
Learning difficulties associated with developmental differences F Nonspecific neurodevelopmental MacDonald et al., 2017
in brain function in children with disorders cannot be neuromyth
improved by education
All children with hearing impairments benefit from visual F Nonspecific neurodevelopmental Marschark, Morrison,
information neuromyth Lukomski, Borgna, &
Convertino, 2013
The multisensory approach (e.g., supporting oral information T Nonspecific neurodevelopmental Galiatsos, Kruse, &
with visual information) to learning is always better for neuromyth Whittaker, 2019
children with disorders
What a child with learning difficulties can understand can be F Nonspecific neurodevelopmental Cologon, 2013—referring
measured by what that child can say neuromyth to Down syndrome
Children with autism and ADHD and alike can be cured F Nonspecific neurodevelopmental Galiatsos et al., 2019
neuromyth
Disorders can be caused by adverse immune reactions to F Nonspecific neurodevelopmental Based on Wakefield
vaccinations neuromyth et al., 1998—
RETRACTED
Autism and ADHD are more common in the 1st degree T Nonspecific neurodevelopmental Sciutto et al., 2000
biological relatives (i.e. mother, father, siblings) of children neuromyth
with autism or ADHD, respectively, than in the general
population

Table 3
Summary of Responses to General Neuromyths and Neuromyths Relating to the Neurodevelopmental Disorder for Those Who Do and
Do Not Work in Education
Work in education? n Mean SD Min Max

General neuromyths Yes 203 3.23 .31 2.07 3.93
No 366 3.21 .29 2.40 3.93
Total 569 3.22 .29 2.07 3.93
Neurodevelopmental myths Yes 203 3.14 .25 1.97 3.67
No 366 3.11 .22 2.43 3.67
Total 569 3.12 .23 1.97 3.67
Note. Responses were scored on a scale of 1–4, with lower scores indicating belief in neuromyths.
Table 4
Results from Linear Regression Model Assessing the Beliefs of
Neuromyths
Term B 95% CI t p
Intercept 3.229 [3.195, 3.263] 186.393 <.001
Neuromyth type −.086 [−0.127, −0.044] −4.047 <.001
Work −.019 [−0.062, 0.023] −.898 .369
Neuromyth −.018 [−0.070, 0.034] −.671 .502
type × work
Note. F(3, 25,601) = 21.89, p < .001.
whether respondents worked in education or not (Work)

on responses (see Table 4). Type significantly predicted
response accuracy, indicating that more erroneous beliefs
were held for neurodevelopmental disorders than general
neuromyths. In contrast to our hypothesis, participants’
involvement in education (Work) did not influence beliefs in
neuromyths, or modulate the respective beliefs in different
Fig. 2. Distribution of average scores per type of myth. types of neuromyth (Type*Work).
Our third hypothesis was that those with more famil-
iarity with the disorder would hold fewer incorrect beliefs,
SEND teachers. However, we did not recruit enough SEND
while those with an interest in the brain and those who
teachers (see Figure 1) and thus the analyses focused only on
access information about the brain more often would hold
the data from mainstream teachers.
more incorrect beliefs. We examined how these predictors
In line with Hypotheses 1 and 2, we compared beliefs
differed between those in education and in the general
about general versus neurodevelopmental neuromyths for public and so two separate regression models were run,
those working in education versus general population. using familiarity with developmental disorders, interest in
Table 3 gives a summary of responses. Chronbach’s alpha neuroscience, and accessing information about the brain
across general neuromyths was r(14) = 0.55, and for SEN as predictors in relation to beliefs in different types of
neuromyths r(29) = 0.67, indicating an acceptable degree neuromyths.
of internal consistency between items, particularly for Contrary to our hypothesis, for both those working in
SEN items. Significant correlations were evident between education (Table 5) and the general public (Table 6), the only
accuracy on general and neurodevelopmental neuromyths significant predictor of neuromyth accuracy was how often
for those in education; r(201) = 0.46 (95% CI 0.34–0.56), respondents accessed information about the brain (p < .05).
p < .001 and for those not in education: r(364) = 0.33
(95% CI 0.23–0.42), p < .001. In addition, as can be seen in
Figure 2, there were no ceiling effects, in that none of the Exploratory Analyses
participants scored all questions correct (mean score of 4). To examine whether the neurodevelopmental disorder
A linear regression was run to assess the predictive abil- itself mattered, we examined responses to the Neu-
ity of the type of neuromyth (Type: General vs. SEN) and rodevelopmental myths grouped by topic (nonspecific

Silvia Gini et al.
Table 5
Regression Results for People Working in Education Examining Factors That Impact the Endorsement of General as well as Neurodevel-
opmental Neuromyths
Term B 95% CI t p
Intercept 3.338 [3.149, 3.528] 34.505 <.001
Are you interested in knowledge about the brain? −.046 [−0.112, 0.019] −1.384 .166
How often do you access information about the brain? −.042 [−0.080, −0.004] −2.143 .032
Familiarity with developmental disorders .003 [−0.028, 0.035] .196 .845
Type of neuromyth −.162 [−0.357, 0.032] −1.635 .102
Familiarity × type .015 [−0.023, 0.053] .780 .436
Interested × how often .011 [−0.012, 0.034] .934 .351
Note. F(6, 8,678) = 5.589, p < .001.
Table 6
Regression Results for the General Public Examining Factors That Impact the Endorsement of General as well as Neurodevelopmental
Neuromyths
Predictor B 95% CI t p
Intercept 3.295 [3.177, 3.413] 54.823 <.0001
Are you interested in knowledge about the brain −.028 [−0.067, 0.010] −1.449 .147
How often do you access information about the brain −.036 [−0.059, −0.014] −3.137 .002
Familiarity with developmental disorders .015 [−0.004, 0.033] 1.537 .124
Type of neuromyth −.066 [−0.169, 0.038] −1.246 .213
Familiarity × type −.008 [−0.030, 0.014] −0.704 .481
Interested × how often −.002 [−0.013, 0.010] −0.309 .757
Note. F(6, 16,238) = 23.67, p < .001.
neurodevelopmental neuromyths, ADHD, ASD, dyslexia,

and Down syndrome). For those working in education, mean
responses differed according to nonparametric repeated
measures ANOVA; Kruskal–Wallis 𝜒 2 (4) = 146.27, p < .001.
Bonferroni-Holm corrected multiple comparisons and
showed that the nonspecific Neurodevelopmental myths
were responded to less accurately than all others at p < .001,
while ASD myths were responded to more accurately than
all others at p < .001.
The same results were found in the general population
(n = 366): differences existed in response accuracy across
type (Kruskal-Wallis 𝜒 2 (4) = 254.1, p < .001), with lowest
accuracy for general neurodevelopmental myths and highest
for ASD myths. Results are presented in Figures 3 and 4.
These analyses indicate that beliefs varied with respect
to different neurodevelopmental disorders. Respondents
working in education were divided into those who had or
had not worked with children with each of these diagnoses,
and mean response accuracy to questions relating to each
disorder were analyzed (see Table 7). No significant dif- Fig. 3. Response accuracy for those who work in education per
ference emerged in accuracy of responses between those type of SEND group.
who had worked with children with any of the diagnoses
and those who had not (p > .05). This supports the earlier DISCUSSION
regression analysis that familiarity with the disorder did
not impact on the ability to recognize Neurodevelopmental The current study investigated the prevalence of general
neuromyths. neuromyths and those about neurodevelopmental disorders,

Knowland & Thomas, 2016). These initiatives may have been

at least partly successful in improving awareness about pop-
ular misconceptions about neuroscience.
Knowledge about general statements about the brain (and
rejecting general neuromyths) was higher than performance
related to neurodevelopmental disorders by both participant
groups (75% correctly answered for those working in educa-
tion versus 74% for the general public).
Similar to previous studies on neuromyths about the
typical brain (Macdonald et al., 2017), regression models
revealed that the frequency of access to brain information
was a protective factor against neuromyth beliefs in both
groups. This is a promising finding, inasmuch as it suggests
the possibility of improving knowledge of neurodevelop-
mental disorders by further dissemination of accurate infor-
mation. Familiarity with neurodevelopmental disorders was
not associated with higher knowledge (Long et al., 2018) and
we did not replicate the pattern that interest in the brain
among those lacking a formal education in neuroscience
increased endorsements in neuromyths (Dekker et al., 2012).
Fig. 4. Response accuracy for those in general population per type Although familiarity with neurodevelopmental disorders
of SEND. did not emerge as a significant predictor, teachers were
more likely to accurately identify neuromyths on ASD rather
comparing responses between participants working in edu- than ADHD, DS, and dyslexia. Much campaigning has taken
cation versus general population. In contrast to our hypoth- place over recent years to improve awareness surrounding
esis, there was no significant difference in the number of ASD, including the Autism Awareness Campaign UK, in
beliefs held in those working in education compared with 2000 which aimed to improve services in health and educa-
the general population, for either type of neuromyth. If tion. Advocacy groups have also designed continuous pro-
we dichotomise their Likert scale responses, those work- fessional development (CPD) programs to support teachers
ing in education on average answered 81% of general neu- in adopting good practices in the classroom (National Autis-
romyths correctly compared with 80% for those not in edu- tic Society, 2021). While it is not possible to draw causal
cation. Inasmuch as it is possible to compare across stud- links between these campaigns and higher ASD knowledge,
ies, the results indicated that participants in the current our results are consistent with the view that the roll-out of
study were better able to identify general neuromyths than these nationwide efforts may lead to a general increase in
those surveyed a decade ago by Dekker et al. (2012), where the knowledge of ASD. Similarly, the higher incidence of
teachers believed almost half of the neuromyths, or more misconceptions about other neurodevelopmental disorders
recently special education preservice teachers: 63% correct demonstrates that there is further work to be carried out.
on average (Ruhaak & Cook, 2018). This change may reflect The lack of marked differences between those working in
increasing awareness around neuromyths and neuroeduca- education compared with the general public suggests either
tion initiatives designed to disseminate accurate scientific that dissemination needs to be population-wide to succeed
knowledge (such as resources provided by the Centre for or that current attempts to provide training around neu-
Educational Neuroscience, e.g., “Neuro-hit or neuro-myth?”; rodevelopmental disorders for those working in education
Table 7
T-tests on Accurate Identification of Neurodevelopmental Neuromyths for Those in Education Who Had or Had Not Worked With
Children With Developmental Disorders (Total n = 203)
Disorder Worked with (n) Mean Difference Worked With—not t df p

Autistic spectrum disorder 157 .102 −1.334 75.81 .186
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 139 .090 −1.852 128.58 .066
Dyslexia 137 −.011 .217 127.53 .828
Down syndrome 65 .059 −1.152 136.54 .251

Silvia Gini et al.
have had limited effectiveness. However, a recent study by Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Understanding the impact
McMahon, Yeh, and Etchells (2019) showed that a short of stigma on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry,
co-produced workshop had a positive impact on the number 1(1), 16–20. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/16946807
of general neuromyths endorsed by initial primary school
Dekker, S., Lee, N., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neu-
trainee teachers. romyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of miscon-
ceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–8.
Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
Limitations and Future Directions
fpsyg.2012.00429
As the number of SENCo teachers in the sample was rela- Department for Education. (2021). Training to teach pupils
tively small (n = 12), we do not report analysis for this group with SEND. Get into Teaching. Retrieved from https://
here (there was an indication in the SENCo group that myths getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/explore-my-options/
about developmental disorders were lower, but this would training-to-teach-pupils-with-send
need to be verified with a larger group). Future research Galiatsos, S., Kruse, L., & Whittaker, M. (2019). Forward together:
might benefit from a deeper investigation of whether SENCo Helping educators unlock the power of students who learn dif-
and mainstream teachers differ in neuromyth accuracy, ferently. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved
from https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
which could feed into more specific recommendations about
Forward-Together_NCLD-report.pdf
the need to tailor training to improve knowledge. Secondly, Herculano-Houzel, S. (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on
at least in the UK, teacher training programs are very varied: public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the
a more fine-grained investigation of the impact of different brain. The Neuroscientist, 8(2), 98–110.
training routes could be the focus of future research. This Horvath, J. C., Donoghue, G. M., Horton, A. J., Lodge, J. M., &
would provide further insight into how much previous train- Hattie, J. A. C. (2018). On the irrelevance of Neuromyths
ing impacts on the endorsements of certain neuromyths. In to teacher effectiveness: Comparing neuro-literacy levels
addition, it is not yet clear what information about the brain amongst award-winning and non-award winning teachers.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
respondents were accessing and how the endorsement of the
.2018.01666
myths impacts on practice and educational outcomes (see Howard-Jones, P. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and
Lethaby & Harries, 2016 versus Horvath et al., 2018), which messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817–824. https://
will have to be explored in future studies. doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817
John, R. P. S., Knott, F. J., & Harvey, K. N. (2017). Myths about
autism: An exploratory study using focus groups. Autism,
CONCLUSION 22(7), 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317714990
Knowland, V., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2016). Neuro-hit or neuro-myth?
The current study showed that those working in education Centre for Educational Neuroscience. Retrieved from http://
as well as the general public endorsed more neuromyths www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-
or-neurofact/
concerning neurodevelopmental disorders than general neu-
Lakhanpaul, M. (2020). Demography. The Down Syndrome Medi-
romyths. This points to a need to improve the provision of cal Interest Group. Retrieved from https://www.dsmig.org.uk/
educational resources to the general public and within mod- information-resources/by-topic/demography/
ules for teachers to be integrated in CPD courses. The failure Lethaby, C., & Harries, P. (2016). Learning styles and teacher train-
to observe different rates of adherence to misconceptions ing: Are we perpetuating neuromyths? ELT Journal, 70(1),
about neurodevelopmental disorders among those working 16–27.
in education and the general public suggests that current Long, S., O’Leary, P., Lobo, R., & Dickinson, J. E. (2018). Women’s
training approaches for those entering work in education are understanding and attitudes towards down syndrome and
other genetic conditions in the context of prenatal screening.
insufficient.
Journal of Genetic Counselling, 27(3), 647–655. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0167-7
REFERENCES Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., &
McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statisti- education or neuroscience decreases but does not elimi-
cal manual of mental disorders. (5th ed.). Washington, D.C: nate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1314.
American Psychiatric Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing fpsyg.2017.01314
(E-S) Theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Marschark, M., Morrison, C., Lukomski, J., Borgna, G., & Con-
1156(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009 vertino, C. (2013). Are deaf students visual learners? Learn-
.04467.x ing and Individual Differences, 25, 156–162. https://doi.org/
Cologon, K. (2013). Debunking myths: Reading development in 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.006
children with down syndrome. Australian Journal of Teacher McMahon, K., Yeh, C. S. H., & Etchells, P. J. (2019). The impact of
Education, 38(3), 130–151. a modified initial teacher education on challenging trainees’

understanding of neuromyths. Mind, Brain, and Education, Tardif, E., Doudin, P., & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths among
13, 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12219 teachers and student teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education,
National Autistic Society. (2021). Professional development. 9(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12070
Retrieved from https://www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/ Torrijos-Muelas, M., González-Víllora, S., & Bodoque-Osma, A. R.
professional-development (2021). The persistence of neuromyths in the educational set-
NHS. (2018). Dyslexia. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dyslexia/ tings: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3658.
Pinter, J. D., Brown, W. E., Eliez, S., Schmitt, J. E., Capone, G. T., Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
& Reiss, A. L. (2001). Amygdala and hippocampal volumes in fpsyg.2020.591923
children with down syndrome: A high-resolution MRI study. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for
Neurology, 56(7), 972–974. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.56.7 action on special needs education: Adopted by the world con-
.972 ference on special needs education; access and quality. Sala-
Ruhaak, A. E., & Cook, B. G. (2018). The prevalence of educational manca, Spain, June 1994. UNESCO, pp. 7–10.
Neuromyths among pre-service special education teachers. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson,
Mind, Brain, and Education, 12(3), 155–161. https://doi.org/ D. M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A. P., Thomson,
10.1111/mbe.12181 M. A., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S. E., & Walker-Smith,
Russell, G., Rodgers, L. R., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Ford, T. (2014). J. A. (1998). RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperpla-
Prevalence of parent-reported ASD and ADHD in the UK: sia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder
Findings from the millennium cohort study. Journal of Autism in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641. https://doi.org/
and Developmental Disorders, 44(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11096-0
.1007/s10803-013-1849-0 Washburn, E., Binks-Cantrell, E., & Joshi, R. M. (2014). What do
Sciutto, M. J. (2013). ADHD knowledge, misconceptions, and preservice teachers from the USA and the UK know about
treatment acceptability. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(2), dyslexia? Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 20(1), 1–18. https://
91–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054713493316 doi.org/10.1002/dys.1459
Sciutto, M. J., Terjesen, M. D., & Frank, A. S. B. (2000). Teach- West, J., Taylor, M., Houghton, S., & Hudyma, S. (2005). A com-
ers’ knowledge and misperceptions of attention-deficit/ parison of teachers’ and parents’ knowledge and beliefs about
hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37(2), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). School
115–122. Psychology International, 26(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10
Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for .1177/0143034305052913
dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Wolff, P. H., & Melngailis, I. (1996). Reversing letters and reading
Educational Needs, 13(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j transformed text in dyslexia: A reassessment. Reading and
.1471-3802.2012.01262.x Writing, 8(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395113

Mind Brain and Education - 2021 - Gini - Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders Misconceptions by Educators and The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mind Brain and Education - 2021 - Gini - Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders Misconceptions by Educators and The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mind Brain and Education - 2021 - Gini - Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders Misconceptions by Educators and The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION

290 Volume 15—Number 4

these diagnoses in their classrooms. As such, every qual- METHODS

Volume 15—Number 4 291

292 Volume 15—Number 4

Item True/false Category Taken or adapted from

Volume 15—Number 4 293

Work in education? n Mean SD Min Max

Note. F(3, 25,601) = 21.89, p < .001.

whether respondents worked in education or not (Work)

294 Volume 15—Number 4

Note. F(6, 8,678) = 5.589, p < .001.

Note. F(6, 16,238) = 23.67, p < .001.

neurodevelopmental neuromyths, ADHD, ASD, dyslexia,

Volume 15—Number 4 295

Knowland & Thomas, 2016). These initiatives may have been

Disorder Worked with (n) Mean Diﬀerence Worked With—not t df p

296 Volume 15—Number 4

Volume 15—Number 4 297

298 Volume 15—Number 4

You might also like